On yesterday I asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of the statement made by political prisoners recently released from Mountjoy prison in reference to their treatment, he will order a public inquiry into the conditions in the prison. The Minister in his reply said that "the answer is in the negative. There are no grounds for instituting such an inquiry." Now, that is where I differ from the Minister. I believe that there are grounds for instituting an inquiry, and I believe that the Minister, being the man that he is, is open to conviction that such an inquiry is necessary. First of all, I would like to take the case of George Gilmore, who has lately been released. Statements were made in this House from time to time of the treatment which George Gilmore suffered in Mountjoy Prison at the hands of the warders and other officials. They were invariably denied and repudiated by the Minister for Justice. If the Minister reads "An Phoblacht"—and I believe it is the duty of the Minister for Justice to read such journals——
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. CONDITIONS IN MOUNTJOY PRISON.
I do not agree.
Mr. BOLAND
Someone does it for him.
He would have seen in it on June 9th an interview with George Gilmore on his release. When he was shown the statement made in this House and the reply by the Minister he was asked to comment upon it. He said:
The statement of the treatment which I suffered is quite true. I am not saying that Mountjoy is a slaughter-house. As a matter of fact, it is not. In many odds and ends of ways I received little kindnesses, but on the occasion of the assaults the warders were veritable demons. I have heard of men maddened with rum and fear running amok in Flanders. What spirit moved the warders I do not venture to say, but it certainly was not Christian.
One of the things we mentioned here before was that George Gilmore was seized, placed upon a table, and that the warders, catching his hair, pounded his head on the table. That was denied. George Gilmore says that is true, and he says, as a matter of fact, that the beating was so severe that he was sick for several days afterwards and could not take food. He says that the prison authorities told his mother that he was on hunger strike, which was not so. Some time afterwards his mother applied for the usual visit that she was entitled to under the prison regulations, but the Chairman of the Prisons Board came to Gilmore and told him that he would allow the visit if he, Gilmore, gave his word of honour that he would not tell his mother of the treatment he received. Gilmore was anxious to see his mother and gave his word, and when his mother came up of course he told her that he was all right. Some time afterwards, after the second assault, when a visit was due from his mother, the Chairman of the Prisons Board came along with the same offer to allow the visit again if he gave the undertaking. George Gilmore refused to give the undertaking a second time, and as a result there was no visit. He lived through it all, and he is alive now to tell the tale. He is alive, and if the Minister for Justice wishes to hold a public inquiry he can get the facts. Members of this House will remember that George Gilmore was a political prisoner, sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for releasing other political prisoners from Mountjoy Jail. That was the charge against him. I do not know whether he was guilty or not. He was charged, at any rate, and got 18 months' imprisonment. No one was hurt on the occasion. As a matter of fact a number of prisoners were benefited by being set free. I would like to contrast that sentence with one that I notice in a case reported in the "Evening Herald" of June 14. The heading was: "A Serious Charge: Inspector Curran——"
On a point of order. We are discussing here as to whether on the statements made by political prisoners a public inquiry should be ordered. I submit that sentences on other prisoners are quite irrelevant.
I think the Deputy should confine himself to the treatment.
I thought the Minister would save me the trouble of raising this matter again.
I cannot facilitate you too much.
I know George Gilmore for a good many years, and I am perfectly willing to believe anything he tells me. I know there are several Deputies present who will say the same thing. Perhaps there are Ministers also who would do so if they were present. I do not think the Minister for Justice moved in the same circles, but other Ministers might know George Gilmore. The second case that I wish to deal with is that of Mrs. MacDermott. She was one of the women prisoners who lately went on hunger strike. She was released from Mountjoy Jail after, I think, a five days hunger strike, and brought to Mercer's Hospital. She was released after being pronounced to be in rather a serious condition by the prison doctor. The Minister for Justice will, of course, agree with me when I say, that the prison doctor would not release this woman unless she was seriously ill. He would be exceeding his duty if he did so.
She was removed to Mercer's Hospital by order of the Prisons Board.
By order of the Prisons Board. I am sorry if I am wrong. She was released——
Anyway, I saw her in Mercer's Hospital, whether she was released or not. I heard that she got bad treatment. She was rather sick as a result of the hunger strike when I saw her, and I did not like to question her too much. But she did show me marks of violence on her arms and legs. I did not like to question her as to what the cause of them was. From what I heard since, they were due to her having been dragged into her cell on a couple of occasions. A certain amount of violence was used, and in all probability the wardresses used more violence than they might have. At any rate these marks were inflicted on her somewhere about three weeks before I saw them. There was a number of marks on one of her legs and a number of marks on one of her arms, and they were still black.
I am very glad that I did not raise this question this morning, because since then Deputy Briscoe, who will speak for himself, had an opportunity of visiting the women prisoners who are still in Mountjoy, and what I have just said about Mrs. McDermott will be more or less verified by him, that is, that they were dragged into their cells on a few occasions. They say, however, and I want to state this publicly —that they are quite satisfied with their treatment now. They are being treated now as they wish to be treated, that is, they have got association and the other things that they fought for. But the question I would like to put to the Minister is this: Why should it be necessary, every time boys and girls are arrested on political charges, that they must put up a fight to get the treatment that is due to them? Why must they go through the trouble of a hunger strike, or put up some other sort of fight, to get what is due to them as political prisoners, or perhaps the Minister would apply the title of second-class prisoners, or something of that nature to them? But at any rate they have got different treatment now and they are satisfied. I think, in view of what George Gilmore has said, and is prepared to say to anybody who asks him about it, and in view of what I myself saw with my own eyes—the marks on Mrs. McDermott's body—that we are perfectly justified in asking for an inquiry. I have heard since about other prisoners, but I do not want to go into that, because I have not seen them personally. Other Deputies may be able to say more. I have also a case here, but I am afraid that it will come under the same ruling, that it does not specifically come under this question, because, unfortunately, it arose in Maryborough Prison. I do not know if the Minister would object——
Well, this is a complaint about Mountjoy.
All right. We will leave that for another night.
Any other night you like.
I would ask the Minister, for the sake of the administration and for the sake of his own Department and of his own honour, as being responsible for that Department, why is he not prepared to order a public inquiry into these matters? If the people saw, from the evidence that would be placed before that inquiry, if it was an impartial and fair inquiry, that what we are saying is wrong, then, of course, the Minister would have scored.
At the outset I wish to state that I am in entire agreement with Deputy Ryan in his plea for an inquiry into prison conditions, particularly in relation to those prisoners who were referred to as political prisoners and who are, in fact, political prisoners. As a result of a deputation of ladies waiting on me, I complained to the Governor that I had heard certain rumours as regards brutal treatment meted out to four prisoners in Mountjoy — Miss Humphries, Miss McCarthy, Miss McInerney, and Miss Jackson—and I felt that it was my duty to go to Mountjoy to see them. I was rather pleasantly surprised to find that the Governor of Mountjoy met me in a very friendly manner and accorded me every facility.
I think that it is only fair to refer to that, because I might refer also to a previous visit I had to Mountjoy, when another governor was there. This Governor certainly gave me every facility, showed me every courtesy, and enabled me to interview the four ladies in question. As Deputy Ryan has pointed out, at the present moment they have no complaint whatever. They had to take certain action, and whether that was recognised by the authorities of Mountjoy or not, the little differences which they wanted were made.
There have been no differences made.
Perhaps the Minister may not have recent information. There has been a slight difference, even if it is only a slight difference. They are allowed extra visits, and they are allowed to have an extra letter.
That is in the regulations. There has been no alteration.
Why were they on hunger strike then?
They did not know that it was in the regulations before.
I want to say that I was pleased to find that the rumours to the effect that they are being brutally treated now are not at the present moment well-founded.
Does the Deputy say that they were ever brutally treated?
The Minister can deal with that at the proper time.
As far as I could gather from the ladies, they have no grievance against the prison authorities generally, except that they wanted certain regulations which they consider that they now have. This is a point that, perhaps, the Minister would be surprised about, and I mentioned to the Governor that I intended referring to it here. He was exceptionally courteous and fair to me throughout. I want to make this point, and I would like the Minister to say if it is not a point which would warrant inquiry: On a Sunday morning in that prison the five ladies there at the time got into an office and locked themselves in. There were not sufficient wardresses on duty to cope with the situation that morning, and as a result ordinary prisoners, who were not political prisoners, were allowed to attempt to get these people out of that room. They did not complain very much with regard to the attempt; they did not complain very much about having to suffer from the matter, but I would like to know if the Minister considers it good policy or wise to use criminals to help the prison officials to keep order in a prison where they are trying to quell a disturbance, if you like, or to quell grievances of political prisoners. I will say this, that there is no dispute as regards that particular item on the part of the Governor himself. I looked upon it as very serious and he explained to me—I presume I am in order in mentioning it here—that if he had been present he would not have allowed it, and he classed it as an indiscretion on the part of these minor officials. I do not want to labour the point with regard to what happened to the ladies when they were resisting certain regulations, whether they were pulled too hard or pushed too hard, or whether their clothes were torn off them or not. But an inquiry into the present system of regulations is necessary to find out if it would not be wise to define, in the first instance, a political prisoner as such when he or she is committed, and if it could be agreed upon that they should have political treatment, that that should be defined. If we got agreement on this I am sure that it would be far easier for the prison officials themselves, far easier for the Minister, and far easier for us on these benches, who cannot sympathise in any way with the prison officials or with the Minister when he is trying to administer order in a prison where he demands from political prisoners the fulfilment of the same regulations as if they were ordinary common-or-garden criminals, serious ones or lesser ones.
When Deputy Briscoe was outlining the treatment and expressing satisfaction at the treatment that is now being accorded to political prisoners in Mountjoy, the Minister interrupted him to say that these are in the regulations, that the regulations allowed for the treatment that the prisoners are now satisfied with. I want an answer to this question: If the regulations allowed that treatment to be given, why had the political prisoners in Mountjoy to undergo a hunger strike for six days in order to obtain that treatment? Why were they refused it before they went on hunger strike, and why were they given it after they were six days on hunger strike, and after one of the women prisoners had to be removed to Mercer's Hospital to recover from the effects of that hunger strike? If the Government are afraid to allow these political prisoners to remain at large, if they think that they are not stable enough to carry on if they allowed these four or five girls to remain at large in Dublin and elsewhere, surely to goodness when they do make them prisoners they should at least give them the treatment that is allowed under the regulations. Certainly they should not be making every prisoner they take on a political charge into Mountjoy go through the agony of a six days hunger strike before giving him or her the treatment that is allowed under the regulations.
I will deal in the short time left to me with the case of those ladies who went on hunger strike in Mountjoy. The charge here, and the only charge which is anyway germane to the issue the House is now discussing, is as to whether they were or were not brutally treated in Mountjoy. I do not think that Deputy Briscoe is quite candid—possibly he was not intentionally uncandid—in the statement which he made to the House. Deputy Briscoe saw those prisoners and spoke to them. What we are discussing is whether in view of the statements made by political prisoners an inquiry should be set up. Deputy Briscoe at no time suggested they were treated with brutality. Did they ever make that charge themselves to Deputy Briscoe? That is a thing which is of importance here. That is the one matter upon which I would have liked to hear Deputy Briscoe speak. That is the one thing which is relevant to the issue which we are discussing, and that is the very one thing which Deputy Briscoe has not spoken about. For my part, I conclude, and I think I am justified in drawing the conclusion, that no such charge was made to him.
What about the statement by Deputy Ryan?
Deputy Ryan does not say there were any marks which showed that brutal violence or anything of that kind was used. I took down Deputy Ryan's words and I am sure he weighed them carefully. He said: "There were marks of violence possibly caused by their being dragged into the cell and in all probability more violence than was necessary was used."
My reference to the subject principally was to know why they did not get the treatment to which they were entitled.
Does the Deputy abandon now the statement that they were brutally treated?
No.
Does the Deputy assert that they were brutally treated? I would like very much to know if that assertion is persisted in.
What you have written down as said by me I am prepared to stand by.
I take it there was no brutal violence.
I said in all probability more than was necessary.
From the reports I have received, and which I am satisfied were correct, no more violence than was necessary was used. Violence of a certain kind was necessary because the ladies refused to obey the prison regulations and locked themselves in a cell. The wardresses did not use any more violence than was necessary. From the information I have received, and I am satisfied that it is perfectly true, the wardresses used no more violence than was necessary. Deputy Briscoe referred to one instance in which these ladies coming from Mass locked themselves in a cell. The wardresses went into the room in which they locked themselves up, and the female prisoners joined in the attempt to get them out of the cell. The facts given to me are these: As soon as the ladies broke away and went into the room the wardresses in charge of the prisoners, bringing them back from Mass, went to the cell and endeavoured to force the door open. That left the other female prisoners unguarded at the moment. These ladies were extremely unpopular in Mountjoy Prison, according to what I am told, because in the middle of the night they used to spend a great deal of the time shouting and singing and they interfered with the sleep of all the other female prisoners.
The Minister's colleagues did the same thing ten years ago. It was quite a common practice then.
It may be, but whether it was a common practice or not the other female prisoners strongly resented it, and they were extremely annoyed that during their term of imprisonment for whatever offences they had committed they considered it particularly hard luck that their sleep should be broken night after night, and when they saw this happen they made an attempt to enter the cell into which these ladies had locked themselves, but they certainly did not and were not allowed to assault or interfere with the prisoners.
Will the Minister come to the case of Gilmore?
I am coming to it as quickly as I can, but I am going to finish with these ladies. It was stated these ladies received ill-treatment. That is not so. Before they went on hunger strike they, that is three of them, received the ordinary treatment of untried prisoners, that is to say, prisoners who may or may not be guilty of charges. The others received the ordinary second division treatment. They are now as far as one set is concerned getting second division treatment, and the others are getting the ordinary untried prisoners treatment. Coming to the case of Gilmore, the charges made by him rest entirely on his statement. Deputy Ryan in his statement said he knew Gilmore well and he entirely believed in every word Gilmore said. As far as Gilmore is concerned, I have had the matter carefully investigated, and I am thoroughly satisfied no more violence was used to him than was necessary in order to carry out the prison regulations in the taking of his photograph and finger prints. The prison warders used no more violence against Gilmore than was necessary in order that the prison regulations should be carried out. He resisted violently, but the prison regulations were carried out and rightly so. Gilmore says more violence was used against him than was necessary to carry out the regulations. I do not accept the accuracy of that statement. I have had the matter investigated and I do not think that any prima facie case has been made out to warrant an inquiry into that case.
Plenty of evidence was given.
I will also say this much, that from what I can gather Gilmore is an excitable gentleman who goes around Dublin committing assaults on policemen who are in the discharge of their duty. He is supposed to be mild and harmless and incapable of hurting a fly, but he carries about a dagger, and he seems to me to be a rather neurotic type. Gentlemen who walk about with daggers are not normal persons, and he is a type of man, it seems to me, that would be likely to exaggerate everything that happened.
I still believe Gilmore.
What about Mr. Sheehan going to Gilmore and asking him not to tell his mother of the treatment he received?
It is the very first time I have heard such a suggestion made. It has not been made in this House before. Again and again in this House the charge has been made that Gilmore was being tortured and done to death, and that he was a wrecked and broken victim of prison cruelty. Let me quote from a paper that has been referred to again and again in this House as being as true as gospel in its statements, "An Phoblacht." Referring to Gilmore, it says: "In appearance Gilmore is as per usual. He greeted those who discovered him on Wednesday just as he might have done had he casually cycled in from his new home in the County Dublin."
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Friday, June 22nd, at 10.30 a.m.